Founding Fathers

—What were these guys really thinking?

 

How do you feel about the Founding Fathers? Speaking for myself, I'm getting a little tired of them.

As you were.

Let's re-phrase that. I'm not so much tired of them as I am of the mystique that ever glows in connection with the very utterance of the words:

THE Founding Fathers.

Let us not belittle what they did, the fine example they set for us. (I'm talking all of us, like everyone all over the whole freaking world.)

But with respect to the passage of Time (which we must all surely respect), I've got to say it—enough is enough.

That was then, this is now.

Holy shit, people. Are we still offering turtle doves, or fatted calves, in the temple? Hell, no.

I think it most expedient to approach this with the application of a phrase that we have all heard. It is the time-honored phrase that compels us to consider the difference (the very significant difference) between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

So the question is, what, in the simplest terms we can wield, was the spirit of the Founding Fathers? What in essence were they after?

In my judgment, no one said it more effectively than Patrick Henry:

Give me liberty or give me death.

I honestly believe that if they were here today, and got themselves actively involved in the politics of our time (and I can't imagine that they wouldn't do that), that they would not align themselves with either of the two currently dominant parties.

If they offered their allegiance to any political movement, it would surely be the Libertarian one. Yes, the Founding Fathers were libertarians. As such, they would have never given a thought to making "substances" illegal. (But, as odd as it may sound, they would most definitely uphold non-smoking laws in public places, such laws being examples of protecting the liberties of non-smokers.)

They also would have never considered making prostitution a criminal activity. Why in the hell would they? Whatever moral code you prefer is your own choice. Just keep it to yourself. Share it only in the most academic sense. You can discuss it with me if you've a mind to, but you're not going to foist it on me.

And the idea of making medical services a universal right would have been utterly incomprehensible for them. What in the name of Providence does government have to do with that? (The Healthcare Debate) When in the company of the founders, all speech regarding rights is offered with Jefferson's famous dictum (delivered in the Declaration of Independence) as background: ...

to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ...

Those rights are of course, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This means (among other things) that, if indulging in prostitution and/or marijuana (or any other substance) is your chosen path to happiness, you should be permitted such liberty ... so long—remember—that you do not infringe upon another's life, liberty or pursuit of their happiness in the process.

If we could somehow resurrect them, and apprise them of the current political playing field, we would very likely hear one particular (and oft-repeated) question issuing from their mouths, namely, "Why are you even discussing such a thing? What does it have to do with the powers of government?" (This question would no doubt be directed at all the hoopla over gay marriage, and abortion.)

And if they did take up arms in the interest of protecting our borders (which they would most certainly do) they would never do it with any sort of political correctness in mind. They would just kill the bastards, period.

For the life of me, I cannot glean that they had any interest in marketing the idea of freedom to the rest of the world. This would have surely been a preposterous notion to them. Why in the hell would you have to sell freedom? Doesn't everyone just naturally desire it?

In a nutshell, the Founding Fathers would have been most interested in protecting the property that was within their sovereign jurisdiction, which means that the resources contained therein also would have been of utmost importance to them. They would have maintained a standing army for such purposes.

In the same spirit, the protection of our borders and resources would have eventually (and naturally) compelled them to institute the equivalent of an environmental protection agency. In the same way that responsible parents would not allow their children to tear the house apart in the conduct of their play, the EPA would not permit the affairs of the marketplace to have free reign over the resources that abound within our borders. They would not, in other words, allow business to be as influential in the governing of our nation as it is today. The elected leaders would run the country, not the marketplace.

July 4, 2011

wayneholland.org